Column: Look at what we lose with development

The last two weeks have been turbulent. Elections pulled us between fear and hope, knowing that outcomes could change lives. In my neighborhood, residents went into a tailspin when the city sprang zoning changes on us.

The rezoning would have crowded 30 rental units onto two blocks near Washington Elementary School, where owner-occupied ranches and spilt-levels are dominant. If anything were constructed on this green space just a block from the school, we thought it would be homes, because the property is zoned for single-family use.

But the plan to rezone to multi-family was moving fast: One week the developer scheduled a meeting for a handful of neighbors, the next week Planning and Zoning placed signs on the property and a few days later the Plan Commission would vote.

If approved, the two-and-three bedroom apartments would add 30 to 90 vehicles to a neighborhood already plagued by traffic. The school and adjacent church bring in many travelers, day and night. Also, the neighborhood is a short-cut for motorists going between Highway 66, Stanley Street and Green Avenue.

Dozens of red "Say NO to Rezoning" yard signs sprouted over the weekend, and more than 200 neighbors signed petitions. More than 100 people attended and many spoke at the Plan Commission meeting on Nov. 5. In addition to increased traffic, they objected to:

? Government subsidies for market-rate rentals. CAP Service's sponsorship would allow the developer to take tax credits for creating "low income" housing. Yet, the $650 to $750 rent is comparable to prices charged by non-subsidized landlords for moderately priced apartments.

? Concentration of low-income individuals. I spoke against creating a ghetto where residents would be shunned; others warned of drugs and burglary. Since poor people wouldn't be able to afford the rent anyway, arguments were made for creating genuine low income housing, not in dense developments but in scattered locations throughout the community.

? Rezoning to change single-family to multiple-family. The city's comprehensive plan and future land use map show single-family zoning on the site. Putting apartment complexes on property surrounded on three sides by single family homes would be "a stick in the eye," as council member Tony Patton said.

The strong neighborhood opposition defeated the proposal.

The arguments for multi-family development on this property include a more profitable use than single-family housing for the owner, Viking Holding, the real estate arm of Ellis Stone construction Co., because the company also would be the contractor for a big project. The city, according to Mayor Andrew Halverson, would be supporting job creation, presumably in infrastructure, site preparation, construction and landscaping. Of course, those jobs would be temporary.

I asked the mayor for additional reasons to support this and other new development. He cited tax revenue. We need more money to hire additional staff in city government, he said, particularly in police, dispatch and the "legal department." Tax revenue will increase, of course, when new eligible properties are assessed and property taxes exacted.

However, the state limits increases on the general tax levy; in other words, the mayor can't simply raise our taxes to hire more staff or create new departments.

But there are three ways to "adjust" the limit: By referendum (recall downtown renewal), by annexation (recently in the towns of Hull, Stockton and Plover) and by the value of new construction. Enough new construction allows the city to raise the tax levy higher than otherwise would be allowed, according to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue.

Do we, like the mayor, want new development at any cost? In addition to higher taxes, it's costing us the downtown mall's atrium, 15 acres originally donated for city parkland at Badger Avenue and 760 acres of prime farm land.

My residential neighborhood is safe, for now. What's next?

Cathy Dugan is a long-time resident of Stevens Point and observer of local government activities. Her column appears monthly.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Column: Look at what we lose with development

The last two weeks have been turbulent. Elections pulled us between fear and hope, knowing that outcomes could change lives. In my neighborhood, residents went into a tailspin when the city sprang

A link to this page will be included in your message.

Join Our Team!

If you are interested in working for an innovative media company, you can learn more by visiting: